With so many fast-breaking and controversial stories in the news this week, a ruling from the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in relation to a childcare worker named Aleena Starshine may have gone unnoticed, though it was picked up by Darragh McDonagh for the Daily Mail.
Starshine was mostly described in news reports as ‘she’ and as “identifying as female” but it’s obvious from the photos and further reading that this is a man in women’s clothing. The daft name is also a giveaway, to be honest: Starshine is not a surname, though people are free to change their name, just as they are free, under the ludicrous Gender Recognition Act to claim they have changed their sex by simply making a sworn statement.
Starshine brought a case to the WRC claiming that Craoibhin Community Enterprise Centre, a community-based childcare and afterschool provider in Letterkenny, Co. Donegal had discriminated against him. The Centre is a community-based facility focused on providing créche and after-school programs to children from 6 months to 12 years of age.
That might have been an unwise undertaking, since it is now public knowledge that Starshine was sacked for offering a child ‘a free kiss from me ‘ or a “big kiss” as a prize during a safari game in the crèche.
From the Business Plus report on the case:
A transgender childcare worker who was sacked from her role after offering an 11-year-old child “a free kiss” as a prize during a game has had her gender discrimination claim dismissed by the Labour Court.
At the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), adjudication officer Niamh O’Carroll ruled that Aleena Starshine had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
She concluded that her employment had been terminated solely due to valid parental complaints and concerns regarding her professional judgment and safeguarding awareness.
We further learn that Starshine, commenced employment with the crèche on November 7, 2024, subject to a six-month probationary clause – but that within just four days of the start date, “the respondent had received two separate and independent complaints from parents regarding safeguarding and professional boundaries.”
While one parent submitted a complaint regarding the offer of a “big kiss” as a prize to a child, another parent also complained that Starshine allegedly released a child to an adult without checking the identity of the person collecting them.
As is always supposed to happen following a complaint of this nature, the childcare company suspended Starshine on full pay while an investigation was undertaken. Tusla was also notified, as is best practise when children are involved.
The response of Starshine to the investigation is pretty flabbergasting, in my view. As well as accusations of flawed process and long delays, he tried to claim that the parent who had made the complaint the child being offered a big kiss was transphobic.
In his telling of events, Starshine was dismissive of the complaints against him, and even suggested that the mother of the child he admitted to offering to “kiss” was being transphobic.
“The letter in the original complaint is highly suggestive of gender discrimination,” Starshine wrote.
Even worse, while he accepted the comment about the kiss had been made, he said it was a joke during a game – and said that the children had laughed and enjoyed it.
Naturally this was found to be unacceptable by the investigators for the Craoibhin Community Enterprise Centre, who said they were particularly concerned that Starshine did not appear to “appreciate or understand why the comment was problematic in a safeguarding context.”
The Community enterprise also “rejected any suggestion the worker’s gender identity or characteristics had played a role in the termination”, Business Plus said.
The childcare provider emphasised that maintaining parental trust and rigid safeguarding boundaries were core competencies for staff, and, regardless of intent, offering physical affection or a “kiss” as a prize was objectively inappropriate in a professional childcare setting.
The employer stated that it was particularly alarmed by Ms Starshine’s total lack of insight and inability to appreciate why the comment or unverified child handover created inherent safeguarding risks.
The WRC had the good sense not to uphold Starshine’s complaint. Adjudicator Niamh O’Carroll determined that Starshine had failed to demonstrate that he had been the victim of discrimination.
“There are no facts before me from which I could conclude that the Complainant’s employment was terminated on discriminatory grounds related to gender,” O’Carroll wrote in her decision. “The evidence before me clearly demonstrates that the Complainant did not successfully complete her probationary period due to concerns regarding her professional judgement, safeguarding awareness, and recognition of appropriate professional boundaries, and for no other reason.”
Curiously, even despite the busy week, the Irish Times, RTÉ, The Journal and all the other media outlets who typically take an interest in the WRC have not reported on the case. They haven’t spent anytime as others did online finding social media posts from Starshine which indicate a strong dislike for JK Rowling and “terfs”. But there is an additional factor worth considering.
Do employers feel under pressure when investigating these types of complaints lest they end up in front of the WRC accused of transphobia? That’s a factor worth looking into.
